TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:36 pm**

apostate wrote:It didn't happen in Texas.

Aggravated Assault is aggravated assault no matter what state it happened in.

Posted: **Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:41 pm**

bauer wrote:
03Lightningrocks wrote:
apostate wrote:
Robert*PPS wrote:Why is he not being charged with aggravated assault?
Husband and wife are each charged with "two counts of assault by pointing a gun" according to the report.

Ironically, perhaps the most serious charge against the husband is "Discharging [...] a firearm into occupied property." That really drives home the safety rule to "Be sure of your target and what is behind it."
Based on the husbands actions, the charge absolutely should be aggravated assualt. He used a deadly weapon while threatening bodily injury to others. There could also be an attempted murder charge tacked on based on the fact that he fired the weapon at them. Someone somewhere likes this guy and has sympathy for his situation. The charges are ridiculously low for what he did. Punching the kid in the face was the assualt part. The kid and his friend were perfectly legal in their actions to stop the attacker.

The production of the gun alone was aggravated assault. Let alone that he fired off a couple of shots.

Yep... You are right. He did not need to fire the weapon for an aggravated assualt charge. Firing the weapon made it attempted murder on top of aggravated assualt. That feller should be facing about 30 years in prison. Lol.... He has a friend somewhere.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:06 am**

Wow...it looks like (through the trusty interwebs) that assault by pointing a gun is a class A1 misdemeanor. I can't believe that.....wow. I found instances of the law for discharging a weapon into property that's a felony, but I didn't have time to read the whole statute, so I don't know if there is some modifier that would reduce the charge or what. I just can't believe that such a reckless act would not incur at least one felony.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:23 am**

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/201 ... ac=[abbreviated profanity deleted].home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another NC story that is kinda similar except this guy also received attempted murder charges for shooting at his victim. Looks like the guy in the original story in the OP's post got off extremely lucky, or he knows someone.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:06 am**

bauer wrote:
apostate wrote:It didn't happen in Texas.
Aggravated Assault is aggravated assault no matter what state it happened in.

Not necessarily. Each state has its own peculiar definition in its penal statutes.

California apparently does not have a crime of "aggravated assault." Penal Code 240-248 describe all manner of acts, from assault, to battery to aggravated battery to assault with a deadly weapon, with a plethora of different penalties depending on the status of the victim, consistent with the convoluted and hodge-podge approach so popular with the legislature here for decades.

In law school, we learned that a battery is an unlawful touching, while an assault was placing someone in apprehension of an unlawful touching. "Unlawful" for that purpose generally meant unconsented to.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:48 am**

JALLEN wrote:
bauer wrote:
apostate wrote:It didn't happen in Texas.
Aggravated Assault is aggravated assault no matter what state it happened in.
Not necessarily. Each state has its own peculiar definition in its penal statutes.

California apparently does not have a crime of "aggravated assault." Penal Code 240-248 describe all manner of acts, from assault, to battery to aggravated battery to assault with a deadly weapon, with a plethora of different penalties depending on the status of the victim, consistent with the convoluted and hodge-podge approach so popular with the legislature here for decades.

In law school, we learned that a battery is an unlawful touching, while an assault was placing someone in apprehension of an unlawful touching. "Unlawful" for that purpose generally meant unconsented to.

Just curious, what would the equivalent charge to aggravated assualt be called in California?

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:02 pm**

I was just doing some google foo on the NC rules for Assualt. From what I am reading it looks like he was charged accordingly with the most serious offenses under NC law. Interesting to say the least. What he did does not even rise to the felony level.

It looks like Texas is much harder on criminals commiting weapons offenses than NC. I guess the old saying "Don't Mess With Texas" holds true.

Thanks to the folks who pointed out the difference in location. I learned something here. I was under the assumption that Agravated Assault was the same everywhere. Heck... One could surmise that some of this has to do with our beliefs in Texas that a person is responsible for their actions and should be punished accordingly.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:23 pm**

03Lightningrocks wrote:
JALLEN wrote:
bauer wrote:
apostate wrote:It didn't happen in Texas.
Aggravated Assault is aggravated assault no matter what state it happened in.
Not necessarily. Each state has its own peculiar definition in its penal statutes.

California apparently does not have a crime of "aggravated assault." Penal Code 240-248 describe all manner of acts, from assault, to battery to aggravated battery to assault with a deadly weapon, with a plethora of different penalties depending on the status of the victim, consistent with the convoluted and hodge-podge approach so popular with the legislature here for decades.

In law school, we learned that a battery is an unlawful touching, while an assault was placing someone in apprehension of an unlawful touching. "Unlawful" for that purpose generally meant unconsented to.
Just curious, what would the equivalent charge to aggravated assualt be called in California?

I'm not sure there is a precise equivalent. I summarized the 4 choices in my post. There is assault but there are a bewildering vareity of provisions depending on the victim,

a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic, lifeguard, process server, traffic officer, code enforcement officer, animal control officer, or search and rescue member engaged in the performance of his or her duties, or a physician or nurse engaged in rendering emergency medical care outside a hospital, clinic, or other health care facility, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic, lifeguard, process server, traffic officer, code enforcement officer, animal control officer, or search and rescue member engaged in the performance of his or her duties, or a physician or nurse engaged in rendering emergency medical care

and it goes on from there, depending on if the event is on school or park grounds, etc. all affecting the precise penalty.

You can read it in all its bewildering glory here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... le=240-248

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:54 pm**

Wow! Crazy stuff JALLEN. Bewildering is an understatement...LOL.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:13 pm**

03Lightningrocks wrote:Wow! Crazy stuff JALLEN. Bewildering is an understatement...LOL.

Let this be a lesson to you Texans that this is what can happen when you pay Legislators full time.

I suppose it also might illustrate what happens when you ignore Coolidge's advice, "Don't vote for Democrats!"

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:40 pm**

JALLEN wrote:
bauer wrote:
apostate wrote:It didn't happen in Texas.
Aggravated Assault is aggravated assault no matter what state it happened in.
Not necessarily. Each state has its own peculiar definition in its penal statutes.

California apparently does not have a crime of "aggravated assault." Penal Code 240-248 describe all manner of acts, from assault, to battery to aggravated battery to assault with a deadly weapon, with a plethora of different penalties depending on the status of the victim, consistent with the convoluted and hodge-podge approach so popular with the legislature here for decades.

In law school, we learned that a battery is an unlawful touching, while an assault was placing someone in apprehension of an unlawful touching. "Unlawful" for that purpose generally meant unconsented to.

In CA brandishing a firearm is 417 of the Penal Code. Shooting the gun at the guy would either be attempted murder, 187 PC or assault with a deadly weapon 245 PC.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:02 pm**

03Lightningrocks wrote:It takes a special kind of meat head to follow a person around with the intentions of "schooling" them on driving etiquette.

I used to work with a guy who did this all the time. He was the worst road rager I'd ever known.

He was cured of his road rage one day, though. A guy in a truck did something to kick his rage in, so he followed the guy. When the guy stopped at a stoplight, my co-worker got out of his car and marched up to the driver's side window and knocked on it. The window then lowered a crack and he found himself staring down the business end of a .45.

They guy in the truck said "You got a problem?"

My friend said "No, sir, I just wanted to tell you to have a nice day." He walked back to his car and hasn't felt the urge to road rage since.

He told me that having a .45 stuck in your face will tend to put certain things in perspective.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:53 pm**

Lol... "I just wanted to tell you to have a nice day" .

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:13 pm**

Kythas wrote:
He told me that having a .45 stuck in your face will tend to put certain things in perspective.

That's the thing about it, isn't it! How do you know that old fool you are mad at and are going to teach a lesson to isn't Tony Spilatro, hit man for the mob who will waste you without asking about your problem, or even batting a eye, or similar? The odds may be slim, but the results could be forever.

We're all law-abiding good citizens, many of us family men and women, even regular church goers. There are all sorts of violent lunatics out there who don't share our sensibilities, don't even know what they are, basically uncivilized violent thugs. That's why we carry, isn't it? The first rule is, or ought to be, to avoid a violent threat to your life, not go looking for them.

Posted: **Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:20 pm**

JALLEN wrote:
bauer wrote:
apostate wrote:It didn't happen in Texas.
Aggravated Assault is aggravated assault no matter what state it happened in.
Not necessarily. Each state has its own peculiar definition in its penal statutes.

California apparently does not have a crime of "aggravated assault." Penal Code 240-248 describe all manner of acts, from assault, to battery to aggravated battery to assault with a deadly weapon, with a plethora of different penalties depending on the status of the victim, consistent with the convoluted and hodge-podge approach so popular with the legislature here for decades.

In law school, we learned that a battery is an unlawful touching, while an assault was placing someone in apprehension of an unlawful touching. "Unlawful" for that purpose generally meant unconsented to.

I get the point you bring up about each state having varying laws in there penal code, but there is always something of equivalency. Your example of CA fits the same bill with "assault with a deadly weapon" which is what this incident would have been if it took place in CA.

It looks as though NC has Felonious Assault with a Deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflicting serious injury (N.C. §14-32) which it self could be punished with varying felony "classes" ... the discharging of weapon into an occupied building was one of the charges he drew and it is also punishable with a felony. Either way law enforcement probably could have leveled more charges on the guy and didn't.

TexasCHLforum.com

An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments

Re: An example of how NOT to handle traffic arguments